advertisement


Diane Abbott

Enfield boy said:
The Labour Party was the subject of a hostile takeover when Blair got the gig,
Click to expand...
I'm sure better memories than mine are available but that's not what I recall. When I joined the party as a union official in the early 80s the ground was moving under it. You actually needed to be a union member to join then and the focus was primarily on the interests of organised labour. 15 years later Thatcher's hatchet job on the movement had reduced its power and morale to such an extent change was inevitable. There was significant left wing infiltration and to that extent there was a battle for power, but I never sensed that anything approaching a majority of members wanted to move in that direction. The unions and the parliamentary party would not have allowed it anyway.
Certainly in the north of England we were all sick of losing. My sense was that collectively we were only too glad to embrace the opportunities that Blair brought with him. If there was a revolution it was a velvet one.
 
Jim Audiomisc said:
The sad thing is that John Smith died abruptly, and that triggerred the leadership election that Tony B Liar won. Can now only wonder how different it might have been if John Smith had lived on.

From that point the LP became Blairite. Even under Gordon Brown they kept to the same faith wrt being able to tame and use PFIs, the wealthy, etc. Brown realised he'd been mislead when the banks crashed. But by then it was too late and was it duly exploited by the Tories and their backers to get back the 'real Tories' into power. Since then their ideology has run the leaderships of both. Only difference is the level of self-delusion the party 'leaders' have about why it may be OK. So far as I can tell, their understanding of real economics is about on the level of their understanding of Quantum Mechanics... But can't tell if they are delusional or dishonest.
Click to expand...
Not so sure. Callaghan was the big turning point. It was his government that explicitly turned away from Keynesianism and adopted Monetarism. Everything that has followed - privatisation, Brown’s light touch regulation of Finance and spending cuts - are products of that shift.
 
Jim Audiomisc said:
The sad thing is that John Smith died abruptly, and that triggerred the leadership election that Tony B Liar won. Can now only wonder how different it might have been if John Smith had lived on.
Click to expand...
I’ve never understood this line. Sure it’s tragic when someone dies so young, leaving behind a family. But John Smith was an arch right winger whose ‘prawn cocktail offensive’ begun Labour’s overture to the bosses. His abolition of the trade union bloc vote mortally wounded the left and paved the way for Blair. He was a key architect of New Labour.
 
KrisW said:
@Seanm You're coming close to my argument: the Labour Party is many factions tied uncomfortably together. I would think of a Labour goverment not as a monolithic single party, but rather as the uneasy coalition of a Progressive Centrist and a Left Wing party that it acts like. Currently this coalition is led by the centrist sub-party but the left wing sub-party are still there, still in meetings and on committees. Voting in Starmer is unpleasant for the party Left, but it also puts that party Left into position for cabinet roles. No such option exists if the Tories get power again.

Protest-voting or not voting at all in a competitive seat achieves nothing except individual self-satisfaction.
Click to expand...
Well of course, but it’s not enough to recognise that the party consists of different factions, as if that somehow guarantees any kind of pluralism, let alone progress, and compels support at all times. You have to look at the current state of play. Right now the right has total control of the parliamentary party and the party machinery, to the point that they can break rules and manipulate procedures with impunity. They have overridden local democracy to install a shitload of absolutely horrible parliamentary candidates - a hundred, two hundred Ian Austins - meaning that the more successful the party is at the next election the more overwhelming the right’s power becomes, and the more awful they are.

Under these conditions it makes little sense to lend them your vote in the hope that the left of the party are able to exert pressure from within - they can’t - or that the right abandon their political goals and interests - they won’t. It makes much more sense to withhold votes and attack them whenever possible, in the hope of exerting pressure from without.

The main thing though is not to kid ourselves about what these people are like, what they intend to do, and how much power the left within the party have.
 
raysablade said:
I'm sure better memories than mine are available but that's not what I recall. When I joined the party as a union official in the early 80s the ground was moving under it. You actually needed to be a union member to join then and the focus was primarily on the interests of organised labour. 15 years later Thatcher's hatchet job on the movement had reduced its power and morale to such an extent change was inevitable. There was significant left wing infiltration and to that extent there was a battle for power, but I never sensed that anything approaching a majority of members wanted to move in that direction. The unions and the parliamentary party would not have allowed it anyway.
Certainly in the north of England we were all sick of losing. My sense was that collectively we were only too glad to embrace the opportunities that Blair brought with him. If there was a revolution it was a velvet one.
Click to expand...
That is overegging it a bit IMO but YES, one difference between Blair and the ‘97 Recreation Society is that Blair did actually win the argument. Like, he made an argument and won people over. Starmer just straight up lied about his agenda and then used brute force and dirty tricks to stomp on the left.

It didn’t take long for Blair to lose his lustre, despite winning people over. Starmer’s *starting* from a position of zero support. His own allies in the party ****ing hate him and can’t wait to stick the knife in. It’s going to be quite interesting.
 
Seanm said:
That is overegging it a bit IMO but YES, one difference between Blair and the ‘97 Recreation Society is that Blair did actually win the argument. Like, he made an argument and won people over. Starmer just straight up lied about his agenda and then used brute force and dirty tricks to stomp on the left.

It didn’t take long for Blair to lose his lustre, despite winning people over. Starmer’s *starting* from a position of zero support. His own allies in the party ****ing hate him and can’t wait to stick the knife in. It’s going to be quite interesting.
Click to expand...
At least Starmer's got no lustre to loose.

For me the lack of expectation is a potential asset. Much as I want change, the greatest challenge for the next 5 years is rebuilding UK government from the enfeebled mess the Tories have quite deliberately left it in. Building a cadre of able ministers with years of experience is a more important initial goal than policy. A legislative programme for the first 2 years can be built on backlog of necessary and uncontroversial change every department wants to enact and Tory infighting has held back.

Ministers whose careers will not be advanced by their Department's failure might be a low bar but in the Home Office, for example, it will be a major innovation.

Expectations for a Labour government are so low that this groundwork can be done without significant disappointment. I realise that this is a minority view;)
 
raysablade said:
At least Starmer's got no lustre to loose.

For me the lack of expectation is a potential asset. Much as I want change, the greatest challenge for the next 5 years is rebuilding UK government from the enfeebled mess the Tories have quite deliberately left it in. Building a cadre of able ministers with years of experience is a more important initial goal than policy. A legislative programme for the first 2 years can be built on backlog of necessary and uncontroversial change every department wants to enact and Tory infighting has held back.

Ministers whose careers will not be advanced by their Department's failure might be a low bar but in the Home Office, for example, it will be a major innovation.

Expectations for a Labour government are so low that this groundwork can be done without significant disappointment. I realise that this is a minority view;)
Click to expand...
They’re obviously working very hard to manage expectations but I don’t think it will cut through. People expect things to improve, and they won’t improve, slowly or otherwise, without turning on some money taps, which will require some fundamental changes. Building governing capacity is important but it’s not going to be enough, IMO, given the magnitude of the problems and how long the can has already been kicked down the road.
 
raysablade said:
Weak minsters will found out in government. I'm not impressed with Rachel Reeves. The Treasury will already have a view on her, it is the one that matters,
Click to expand...
I mean that’s big part of what I’m talking about. If the Treasury isn’t cut down to size the best we can hope for is a less dramatic death spiral.
 
raysablade said:
Weak minsters will found out in government. I'm not impressed with Rachel Reeves. The Treasury will already have a view on her, it is the one that matters,
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t put any faith in the Treasury. Reeves is a creature of the Treasury and the Treasury is as committed to spending cuts as Reeves.
 
ks.234 said:
I wouldn’t put any faith in the Treasury. Reeves is a creature of the Treasury and the Treasury is as committed to spending cuts as Reeves.
Click to expand...
The power of the Treasury is a matter of fact not faith. They'll demand an effective voice in cabinet, Reeves might be on message but that's not necessarily enough.
 
raysablade said:
The power of the Treasury is a matter of fact not faith. They'll demand an effective voice in cabinet, Reeves might be on message but that's not necessarily enough.
Click to expand...
Sorry, not sure what you mean. Not necessarily enough for what?
 
sq225917 said:
Historically speaking she's not wrong, the same could be said of any group that holds power and limits entrance to that group. She could have just as well said that of the black rulers of Africa and it would have been equally true, but less offensive because it identifies a specific group, and she's black.
Click to expand...

Sam Kerr will be delighted to hear that.
 
raysablade said:
She needs to be an effective communicator and negotiator in cabinet and across government its not just a question of doing hard sums and saying no.
Click to expand...
Reeves has already communicated what she intends to do, and that is cut spending. The treasury is onboard with this. What else is there to negotiate?

The economy is not about hard sums at all, it‘s about allocating resources, and Reeves has made it clear that she will allocate them upwards. The Treasury is fully on board with this direction of travel too.

What the greater number of this country needs is a different direction of travel, and Reeves and the Treasury are committed to carrying on the downward direction way we are already on.
 
There is a thing, people understand on a subliminal level and that is; the whole political system is ****ed. It comes out as 'they are all the same' or 'deep state' or some other nonsense. But it speaks to an understanding that the political system no longer serves its purpose.
This is why the political class, columnists, commentators can't understand Trump/ Brexit/ Reform/ Galloway or any other mad outfit's traction.
People are sick of it. The only way to create something new is to destroy the old, people understand this in an instinctive way.
Now this is finally crystallising in my mind I'm thinking the same.
 
MVV said:
There is a thing, people understand on a subliminal level and that is; the whole political system is ****ed. It comes out as 'they are all the same' or 'deep state' or some other nonsense. But it speaks to an understanding that the political system no longer serves its purpose.
This is why the political class, columnists, commentators can't understand Trump/ Brexit/ Reform or any other mad outfit's traction.
People are sick of it. The only way to create something new is to destroy the old, people understand this in an instinctive way.
Now this is finally crystallising in my mind I'm thinking the same.
Click to expand...
Depends on what that purpose is. For a very brief time we had a political system whose end purpose was social, we have now returned to a political system whose end purpose is a business elite.

Perhaps we need to be clearer about our own desired ends?
 
ks.234 said:
Depends on what that purpose is. For a very brief time we had a political system whose end purpose was social, we have now returned to a political system whose end purpose is a business elite.

Perhaps we need to be clearer about our own desired ends?
Click to expand...
If I'm honest, I've been utterly puzzled since the Brexit vote and bastard Trump's election. I am heading towards rip it up and if the only way is Trump or Galloway or something worse maybe that is where we need to go. Burn it down.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top